Given TTbn usual posturing about homosexuality there is no doubt that he/she has felt a stirring in his/her loins when spending time with the same sex. Maybe he/she felt a tingle getting a hug from a close friend.
Can I suggest despite your misgiving you embrace your sexuality and give it a go take a walk on the wild side TTbn.

Phillips:

“Not if de facto couples have the choice to get married too.”

Why should they have to get married to obtain what should be rightfully theirs without marriage? That would be an irrational approach to their relationship with their government. Governments should not withhold rights unless there is a good reason to do so and anyone who allows them to get away with it lacks dignity and self-respect.

“If heterosexual de facto couples want the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, then a couple of hundred bucks and a trip down to the registry office is all they need to arrange that. Why is that too much to ask?”

If it is not much to ask then why bother asking it at all? How does a couple of hundred bucks and a trip to the registry office make them any more worthy of those rights? Are governments in the business of selling off human rights now?

“Your flawed reasoning could be applied to any two (or more) people who are bound by a contract versus those who are not.”

Those rights should not be distributed according to the possession of a contract. There is no reason why you should have a contract in order to obtain what is rightfully yours from the government. It should be irrelevant to the government whether you have a contract or not.

“Your attempt to cry foul comes across as insincere and unconvincing.”

My sincerity is not really relevant here. The only issue is who has the best arguments. You should focus on the arguments and not my feelings.

phanto,

That depends on what exactly you think should be rightfully theirs without a marriage contract.

<<Why should they have to get married to obtain what should be rightfully theirs without marriage?>>

What if a couple doesn’t want the responsibilities of marriage in the event that the relationship breaks down? Should we just create an ‘anti-marriage’ certificate for those instances instead? No, it makes more sense to have couples - who want to be legally bound - enter a contract, as this situation occurs less frequently than does the formation of romantic relationships.

<<Governments should not withhold rights unless there is a good reason to do so and anyone who allows them to get away with it lacks dignity and self-respect.>>

No rights are being withheld. Again, they are free to enter a marriage contract if that’s what they want.

<<If [marriage] is not much to ask then why bother asking it at all?>>

Because many won’t want the arrangement. An opt-out system for less-committed couples in newer relationships makes less sense than the current opt-in system, because, again, romantic relationships are formed more frequently than are marriages. You don't think most people have entered more marriages than they have romantic relationships, do you?

I didn't think so.

You are going nowhere with this line of reasoning.

<<How does a couple of hundred bucks and a trip to the registry office make them any more worthy of those rights?>>

It doesn’t. There is a difference between qualification and worthiness.

<<Are governments in the business of selling off human rights now?>>

No.

<<My sincerity is not really relevant here.>>

It is when your lack of it is so revealing.

<<You should focus on the arguments and not my feelings.>>

I have said nothing about your feelings. Your insincerity reveals your motivations (or at least a disconnect between what you say and why you are saying it) not your feelings.

Phillips:

“That depends on what exactly you think should be rightfully theirs without a marriage contract.”

Everything that it is available to those who have a marriage licence from the government. Which things would you deny them of and why?

“No, it makes more sense to have couples - who want to be legally bound - enter a contract, as this situation occurs less frequently than does the formation of romantic relationships.”

They can have a ‘contract’ if they want one but the government does not need to be a party to it. The government only needs to have a relationship to couples as couples. For the government to meet their commitments it is sufficient to know who are couples according to the government’s own definition. Any extraneous characteristics of that relationship are irrelevant. The government is not interested in romantic relationships. It has nothing to say about them. It is only interested in those who live as a couple according to its definition of a couple.

“No rights are being withheld. Again, they are free to enter a marriage contract if that’s what they want.”

They are being withheld if you put unreasonable conditions on people having those rights. Having to be married is an unreasonable condition.

“romantic relationships are formed more frequently than are marriages.”

Romantic relationships are not the issue. We are talking about people who meet the criteria established by the government which makes them a couple. Romantic relationships do not meet that criteria.

“It doesn’t. There is a difference between qualification and worthiness.”

So what qualifies them other than a visit to the registry and a few hundred bucks?

“Your insincerity reveals your motivations”

What relevance are my motivations? We don’t make judgements on issues of government policy based on the perceived motivations of either side of the arguers. We make them based on the logic of the argument.

De facto couples are not denied anything, phanto.

<<Which things would you deny them of and why?>>

Once again, they have the freedom to enter a marriage if they please. So long as they’re not the same sex, of course.

<<They can have a ‘contract’ if they want one …>>

So, then they get all the additional complexity and expense, without any of the benefits that marriage's standardisation offers?

Good luck selling that one!

<<… but the government does not need to be a party to it.>>

It does if you want to reap the benefits of a standardised system.

<<For the government to meet their commitments …>>

It’s not just about the government.

<<… it is sufficient to know who are couples according to the government’s own definition.>>

There is no reason the government must stop at “sufficient”.

<<It is only interested in those who live as a couple according to its definition of a couple.>>

So now you want to discriminate against couples who don’t live with each other? Where’s their “human rights”?

You see what happens when you’re not honest about your real motivations? You contradict yourself all over the place because you have to make it all up on the fly. Like lying, you need to remember what you’ve said.

<<[Rights] are being withheld if you put unreasonable conditions on [attaining them].>>

A trip to the registry office is more reasonable than expecting expensive contracts to be drawn up that are too complex and varied to be of any use in emergency situations. Your contracts would have more problems than marriage, with none of the benefits. And all in the name of a feigned concern for rights.

<<Having to be married is an unreasonable condition.>>

Why?

<<So what qualifies them other than a visit to the registry …>>

Other than being in a heterosexual relationship? Nothing. That’s the point.

<<What relevance are my motivations?>>

Oh? Suddenly motivations no longer matter to you?

“… I think your motivation is suspect.” - phanto (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323736)

Your motivations are relevant because they reveal the disingenuousness of this bogus libertarian line.

We already have two standards. Why should marriage be the standard?

"Your motivations are relevant because they reveal the disingenuousness of this bogus libertarian line."

Disingenuousness is not relevant - only arguments are relevant.